|
Quorum posted:In no way am I attempting to minimize the campaign's failure to get the message out, but the playing field is tilted in a particularly galling way when the media simply refuses to cover the things that we all agree a Dem candidate must hit in order to get elected. Learning how to play that game is one of the things the party has to do moving forward. yep cause the playing field's going to get way more tilted. the bare facts of the matter is that hillary, earned or unearned (imo earned), was percieved to have near no economic platform other than "8 more years of obama". she had an unprecedented money machine behind her with ads, performers, and even a news outlet she bought to trumpet her message and she (supposedly) couldn't get her message out. imo that rings false because the foremost examples of her messaging refuse to deal with economics, or much of anything at all! but in any case, we as democrats need to look at how to get our message out, and IMO bernie is a good example. he went from relatively unknown to contender with hillary clinton in an extremely short amount of time and with a hostile media
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Quorum posted:Yeah this would be a real great way to wreck her legitimacy and damage the integrity of the political system in a way that even trump probably can't. Unfortunately. A part of me would love this too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:TBH I don't really care if you believe me or not, everyone believes what they want to and then cherry picks stuff to support it. yeah, you didn't care what i believed during the election or the primary either. how's that working out for you again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:he's also a big-pharma lobbyist atm I'm not denying that I'm just saying we need to look at what things worked and didn't work with previous iterations and learn from it. I hope it isn't Dean either but I hope we can adopt and build on his strategies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
Condiv posted:he's also a big-pharma lobbyist atm Hmmm, maybe that's why he was looking to get into a leadership position in the Dems? From there he could make sure that the Parma companies benefit as much as possible by quashing any possible opposition in the next 8 years.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Maybe I'm still too optimistic, but I think the Dems could roll with just about any young, enthusiastic candidate who has the support of Bernie Sanders, is just a voice for the platform who stays on message, and win 2020. Probably easier said than done. Maybe. I think in order to energize all the wings of the party (that matter, I don't think you need to give a poo poo about the centrist technocrats, they'll come along happily if you promise them effective governance) you'll need someone who can push economic justice while not alienating minorities. After all, as has been posted ad nauseum, you cannot take anyone's vote for granted, and economic justice doesn't need to mean ignoring the needs of minority voters but it often has in the past and we need to allay those fears, because it's perception that matters. So you need charismatic, progressive, youthful (maybe, I think you could potentially skip this if you needed to), and with a proven civil rights track record. Not impossible but a big shopping list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Yeah I've just been having recurring nightmares and panic attacks of watching the Earth slowly turn into Venus because a bunch of coal miners can't accept that their jobs aren't coming back. Now granted maybe the Earth isn't going to go into Greenhouse overdrive, but still that 7 C increase is loving terrifying. we're just gonna have to hope we can pick back up the pieces. but part of that is working as hard as we can right now to minimize the destruction, for example pushing like crazy for a strong dem turnout in 2018
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/797463319925899264
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:I'm not denying that I'm just saying we need to look at what things worked and didn't work with previous iterations and learn from it. I hope it isn't Dean either but I hope we can adopt and build on his strategies. i don't have problems adopting his strategies where they make sense, but the man is as unstrustworthy as the rest of the establishment and he needs to work drat hard before he can be trusted with anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Ray Tensing, the Cincinnati police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black man, just got a mistrial:NBC posted:Judge Declares Mistrial for Ray Tensing, White Ex-Cincinnati Officer Who Killed Driver B B fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
I'm wondering if any of these white supremacists will be in Washington D.C. for inauguration day and how big the counter protest will be. I remember when Bush got elected there was one but this one may be way larger and also in several cities at the same time. Oh when will these protests turn into really bad rioting? I know the police will bring their army gear and tanks on. For all the ooh noo Rustbelt white people talk they ain't on TV for any but that tea party crap and that isn't even close to any of these protests in terms of size. White people are too cowardly and lazy to defend Trump, this is going to look incredibly bad for Trump and Republicans. They literally do not represent the populace. Remember, Hillary won the popular vote in places of power, finance and culture. The Rustbelt has none of those things besides how the electoral college works in their favor. The revolution will start in the cities and the Republicans won't be able to stop it without mowing down millions of people and also ruining places that actually contribute economically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no-one's saying racism shouldn't be a central plank. i think it's good for us to address both at the same time and I've always felt that it was a shame hillary didn't try to. but if you're saying hillary was a good candidate on economic justice, she's not, and refusing to cater to it lost her the election Also lol that Bill brought the need to focus on economic issues up multiple times to Robbie Mook and the rest of Hillary's team and was dismissed as an old man dummy nostalgic for his 92 campaign
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
http://twitter.com/smerconish/status/797456717885927426 Not sure if this has been posted yet, but Sam Wang did in fact eat a bug, on live TV. Now back to your regularly scheduled repetitive cyclical slapfight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yep cause the playing field's going to get way more tilted. the bare facts of the matter is that hillary, earned or unearned (imo earned), was percieved to have near no economic platform other than "8 more years of obama". she had an unprecedented money machine behind her with ads, performers, and even a news outlet she bought to trumpet her message and she (supposedly) couldn't get her message out. imo that rings false because the foremost examples of her messaging refuse to deal with economics, or much of anything at all! but in any case, we as democrats need to look at how to get our message out, and IMO bernie is a good example. he went from relatively unknown to contender with hillary clinton in an extremely short amount of time and with a hostile media Yeah, it's going to take awhile to piece apart what really went on with Hillary's campaign, but it was definitely sidetracked by blowing Donald Trump's flaws into the spotlight. Turns out people probably knew exactly how lovely he was the moment "Donald Trump runs for president" became a real thing, and beyond the initial absurdity of it, that was a lot of wasted effort. Also worth pointing out that while Hillary herself was happy to talk economic policy, or any sort of policy - and would have talked it all day long, with more than enough enthusiasm and competency to silence everyone here - that wasn't the focus of her campaign. The candidate and the campaign are different beasts. The campaign went whole-hog in on glass ceiling, Trump is a misogynist, Hillary has experience. Those are all true things, but they're not energizing, and falling back on 30 years of experience doesn't reassure people with like a 1-week memory that Hillary is going to make their own lives measurably better in specific ways, even though that would be undoubtedly true (and relatively easy to prove) compared to what Trump offers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
IMO dean doesn't have to be chairman to do good work. Give him a meaningless post like the one DWS got bought off with (50 State Chair) but actually put him in charge of organizing a fifty state strategy. Man's a peerless organizer, and it doesn't matter if his politics aren't perfect if he's got someone above him on the totem pole who's better on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah, you didn't care what i believed during the election or the primary either. how's that working out for you again? I don't remember having any interactions with you during the primary or election so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I think you are assuming a whole bunch of things about me without any proof.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Quorum posted:IMO dean doesn't have to be chairman to do good work. Give him a meaningless post like the one DWS got bought off with (50 State Chair) but actually put him in charge of organizing a fifty state strategy. Man's a peerless organizer, and it doesn't matter if his politics aren't perfect if he's got someone above him on the totem pole who's better on that. someone brought up a post like head of strategy or something, where he has no control over politics but does have control over battle plan and stuff. i'm hesitantly supportive of something like that
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Maybe. I think in order to energize all the wings of the party (that matter, I don't think you need to give a poo poo about the centrist technocrats, they'll come along happily if you promise them effective governance) you'll need someone who can push economic justice while not alienating minorities. After all, as has been posted ad nauseum, you cannot take anyone's vote for granted, and economic justice doesn't need to mean ignoring the needs of minority voters but it often has in the past and we need to allay those fears, because it's perception that matters. There are plenty of options that tick all those boxes, but I'll still be somehow shocked if the party manages to choose them instead of someone's safe bet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:Also lol that Bill brought the need to focus on economic issues up multiple times to Robbie Mook and the rest of Hillary's team and was dismissed as an old man dummy nostalgic for his 92 campaign Frankly the Clinton campaign should have ran on an updated platform of nuremberg laws because that was working for trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
speng31b posted:There are plenty of options that tick all those boxes, but I'll still be somehow shocked if the party manages to choose them instead of someone's safe bet. This is, ironically enough, a safe bet. Though there are plenty of historical lessons to draw on here; if they can just fish up the 2004 postmortem I bet there's a bunch of things they can apply with minimal tweaking to 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if its wrong, tell me what it really is? Based upon the relationship between the term and those concepts, here is what neoliberalism is not: Neoliberalism is not a top down one way process & Neoliberalism is not preventable - The policy and political mechanizations that more quickly enabled it were a response to the distanciation of space/time by rapidly evolving international communication mechanisms. There quickly became far fewer barriers to trade and the free movement of resources and ideology, which led to a change in the minds of those that occupied communal. Whether you like it or not, and no matter how many protectionist measures you implement, your market will eventually open because cosmopolitanism has shifted the world economy to a post-national view. I want backpacks from Sweden, you want chocolate from Belgium, Apple wants minerals from Africa. It's not because international elites told you you want these things, it's because your worldview has been opened by the collapsing international barriers that have both been precipitated by and produce the neoliberal world order. Policy changes, deregulation, and the political project of international banking all worked to more quickly collapse these barriers, sometimes with grave economic and social consequences. But they were collapsing regardless. Neoliberalism does not "believe there is no such thing as society". The atomization of the individual is the product of poor implementations of poor, corporatist neoliberalism. Many countries have incorporated all of the elements of neoliberalism, while using the benefits of international trade to provide for their people. Norway is an obvious, convenient example (international arms, fish, and oil trade). The term loses all meaning if you just call good instances compassionate corporatism and bad instances neoliberalism. Neoliberalism does not necessitate a weak, small government. In fact, to be successful, it demands a strong, well regulated government that defers the benefits from the free movement of capital and labor to the people writ large. This is the failing of the neoliberal political agenda in the United States. If you want to know what neoliberalism is and how it has been enabled. These books are a good start. Until then, stfu. https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Non-death-Neo-liberalism-Colin-Crouch/dp/0745652212 http://www.sok.bz/web/media/video/ABriefHistoryNeoliberalism.pdf http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=2660 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Other-Neoliberal-Fantasies-Communicative/dp/0822345056 https://www.dukeupress.edu/neoliberalism-as-exception (discussion, lit review is incredible) straight up brolic fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that between now and 2020 there's a good chance that ~20 million people will have been hosed over by the gutting of Obamacare, which absolutely will economically ruin large swaths of people, Trump will have raised taxes on the middle class, made the wealthy demonstrably wealthier, and generally speaking hosed the entire economy, and terrorized/infuriated the media by using the 1st amendment like toilet paper while inciting violence against the press. So unless we're all actually dead by that point the Dems should be able to field a candidate (or really even just a robot who repeats a few phrases) and can tear that poo poo apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
speng31b posted:It's also worth noting that between now and 2020 there's a good chance that ~20 million people will have been hosed over by the gutting of Obamacare, which absolutely will economically ruin large swaths of people, Trump will have raised taxes on the middle class, made the wealthy demonstrably wealthier, and generally speaking hosed the entire economy, and terrorized/infuriated the media by using the 1st amendment like toilet paper while inciting violence against the press. So unless we're all actually dead by that point the Dems should be able to field a candidate (or really even just a robot who repeats a few phrases) and can tear that poo poo apart. I'm glad you think Republican voters are going to start critically thinking and voting rationally soon. I hope so too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AmyAlex63/status/797465456667926529
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:I'm glad you think Republican voters are going to start critically thinking and voting rationally soon. I hope so too! Don't need to. Just turn out the dems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Don't need to. Just turn out the dems. They didn't turn out to stop Hitler the first time around, why would they the second?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:I could tell that it was wrong in the fact that you only wrote like two sentences. If you take away the Neoliberalism is a bad word for all the bad things that have happened with international capital element, it is essentially a meaningless term. It is a stand-in. It is the product and producer of countless concepts. It has been used so many times in so many ways that its meaning has become a refraction of the morality imbued on the term by the speaker. However, in popular use, it does typically refer to a number of specific concepts: deregulation of international markets, the creation of an international financial order, globalization, time-space, free market, competition. You are right, but as you seem to imply yourself, there are two ways of dealing with the problems of liberal economic policies, the first is social democracy, the other is a police state and doubling down on suppressing freedoms of expression and assembly. Maybe there is a third one, a populist patrimonial state, but that falls under the second category, as far as I am concerned. So, and because there seems to be nobody interested in the good solution to neoliberal contradictions (soc dem), neoliberalism becomes, in practical terms, a huge liability for the future. And until somebody is willing to take up soc dem policies again, there is no gain to be had for the public from embracing further steps towards a more globalized economy faster than would be otherwise necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:I could tell that it was wrong in the fact that you only wrote like two sentences. If you take away the Neoliberalism is a bad word for all the bad things that have happened with international capital element, it is essentially a meaningless term. It is a stand-in. It is the product and producer of countless concepts. It has been used so many times in so many ways that its meaning has become a refraction of the morality imbued on the term by the speaker. However, in popular use, it does typically refer to a number of specific concepts: deregulation of international markets, the creation of an international financial order, globalization, time-space, free market, competition. It almost seems that Neoliberlaism is alot like communism it just can't ever be done right, and tends to leave millions worse off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Is there even a remote chance that the Democrats are ever going to push to have the EC abolished since it's outdated as gently caress and has now twice in less than 2 decades resulted in a POTUS that the majority of the country doesn't actually want?Non Serviam posted:I don't think he'll be a good president. In fact, he'll have a presidency that will not please anyone. His base will be pissed by the lack of a wall and the fact that Hillary isn't in front of a firing squad, Democrats will oppose his traditional Republican policies. It's logistically impossible to build the wall during Trump's presidency. Not only would it cost in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, but the amount of concrete and steel needed for it is beyond most people's comprehension. That's before getting in to the fact that you're going to be digging up and leveling all that land so you can actually built the drat thing to begin with. Or that private contractors will fleece the government so badly it'll make Iraq look like a sound financial decision. Josef bugman posted:So the Republicans are going to be against it. It's government jobs, the worst thing ever. Nah they'll contract it out to private firms, ensuring a disjointed and patchwork result at best. While billions are skimmed off the top. AVeryLargeRadish posted:I said it in the SC thread, no one wants to talk about the possibility but I have four words for ya'll: Stacking the court is so far beyond nuclear option that if the GOP does that it's because they're planning to actually create a Trumpstaffel and start killing 'mexicans' in the street. Condiv posted:haha That article really underplays the WI voter ID law poo poo that was going on. It's pretty easy to have poor turnout when people are left with the feeling of "gently caress jumping through all these hoops" because of suppression efforts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Does anyone have any lectures or good reading on what I guess would be the polar opposite of Mark Blyths "austerity is loving dumb stop doing it" thesis? I want to get a wider perspective on this not because I don't think Blyth is right but because I just know so little about the other ideas floating around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Are there detailed voter turnout numbers yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They didn't turn out to stop Hitler the first time around, why would they the second? Because Hitler 2.0 was only visibly ratfucking minorities, when they start getting ratfucked by the same poo poo they'll come out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:They didn't turn out to stop Hitler the first time around, why would they the second? I have faith the Dems won't run the least popular candidate in the history of polling twice in a row.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You are right, but as you seem to imply yourself, there are two ways of dealing with the problems of liberal economic policies, the first is social democracy, the other is a police state and doubling down on suppressing freedoms of expression and assembly. Maybe there is a third one, a populist patrimonial state, but that falls under the second category, as far as I am concerned. So, and because there seems to be nobody interested in the good solution to neoliberal contradictions (soc dem), neoliberalism becomes, in practical terms, a huge liability for the future. And until somebody is willing to take up soc dem policies again, there is no gain to be had for the public from embracing further steps towards a more globalized economy faster than would be otherwise necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
botany posted:I have faith the Dems won't run the least popular candidate in the history of polling twice in a row. No, really all we need to do is scream at them that their racist and the'll vote for us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Is there even a remote chance that the Democrats are ever going to push to have the EC abolished since it's outdated as gently caress and has now twice in less than 2 decades resulted in a POTUS that the majority of the country doesn't actually want? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Does anyone have any lectures or good reading on what I guess would be the polar opposite of Mark Blyths "austerity is loving dumb stop doing it" thesis? I want to get a wider perspective on this not because I don't think Blyth is right but because I just know so little about the other ideas floating around. Here's a relatively decent pros and cons article if you want to briefly understand the philosophical underpinnings of a pro-austerity argument. The problem is that, in practice, it really just hasn't worked. https://www.ft.com/content/e1532c9a-aceb-11e2-b27f-00144feabdc0
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:As a European the latino thing is baffling to me because latino's constitute so many different nationalities, religions and cultures that it as a signifier must assuredly be almost completely worthless. Like if I were to do a comparative study between second generation Cubans and Mexicans about political attitudes I sincerely doubt that their response would be uniform to the level that pollsters bungling treatment of them would imply. There are some differences, but most Latinos aren't that far apart in terms of voting since the only real split politically is between the Cubans and the rest with the exception of some hardcore conservatives on social issues who'll go Republican. The older Cubans are right-wing. Like someone else said, it has to do with not being white, being poor/working class, and speaking Spanish more than anything else. When Latinos are talked about, it's more about Mexicans who are the biggest Latino group and Central Americans. Puerto Ricans come up when they're regionally relevant too, but the big complaints nationally are about Mexicans/Central Amerians. Latinos have chosen to consolidate for the most part and you can see that with the Spanish-speaking media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No, really all we need to do is scream at them that their racist and the'll vote for us. The democratic party will never be able to get white republican voters to vote for the democratic candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:The democratic party will never be able to get white republican voters to vote for the democratic candidate. It's really that simple. Even faced with Trump the strongest stance they could take was writing in Kasich/Pence/Harambe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:55
|
|